B.C. government’s health authority reviews can save health care if done right

Government efficiency and crusades against “wasteful spending” look to be all the rage these days. 

From the U.S.’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to Mark Carney’s and Pierre Poilievre’s fiscal platforms, the small government ideal of keeping the state out of the people’s pocketbooks — however sincere — appears to be the chosen strategy of our elected legislators to keep themselves in office and, hopefully, in the good graces of us voters. 

Recently, the NDP-led B.C. government announced its own anti-waste review of the province’s health authorities. Global News reported the Ministry of Health is reviewing its health authority spending to make sure resources go to “critical patient services” and lower wasteful administrative costs.

The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) is the first to be placed under the microscope due to its role in administrating health-care services all across the province. 

This review, which specifically targets administrative costs, comes after a spate of emergency room closures in rural B.C. and the Lower Mainland due to rampant understaffing. Indeed, the number of patients is outpacing the amount of nurses, beds, and even hospitals needed to effectively provide health-care services to the province’s booming population.

What one defines as “wasteful spending” is often ideologically charged, although objective cases of taxpayer money being misspent still very much do exist and should be called out when it happens. 

The line that separates real and perceived misuses of public resources is easily blurred, which necessitates a cautious, defined approach that targets actual money pits whilst keeping services and roles that are actually vital — but perceivable as “waste” — from being needlessly eliminated. 

This is why the choice to examine administrative costs is perhaps the best route for the government. Critics, according to CBC News, have made note of bureaucratic bloat in B.C.’s health-care system. Money is going to the middlemen, but not to the hospitals or street-level staff who could do with extra beds and hands. 

Since the review has only just begun, there is no telling at the moment what the outcome will be. Hopefully, the best possible conclusion will be that funds are redirected towards actual health-care administration rather than going to health-care administrators — there’s a big difference between the two. 

The worst possible outcome, aside from no meaningful changes, could be that the total budget of health care will be slashed. This would see administration costs go down, but professionals, hospitals, and resources would get hit the hardest — thereby hurting patients just as badly.

Previously, I had warned that the BC NDP might shift right and towards the current political centre as a consequence of the last provincial election’s results. How this review is conducted, and especially how the government responds to its findings via policy, will be a measuring stick of how moderate the governing party is seeking to go. 

While the complete and utter privatization of our health care is (thankfully) not on the table, we cannot discount the possibility I have laid out above — austerity-driven budget cuts. Gutting health care in response to a bloated administration and over bureaucratization is comparable to bringing a chainsaw into neurosurgery, the ensuing damages will far outweigh whatever perceived repairs have been made.

Clearly, B.C.’s health-care system has a fiscal issue that is hampering health professionals’ abilities to do their jobs and these problems must be dealt with at once. Handling it properly will solve a multitude of related problems and ensure that British Columbians will continue to enjoy accessible health care. 

Giving in to “easy solutions” will wreak havoc on people’s lives and ensure that a life-saving institution fails to deliver what we need.